DETAILED ACTION
In Response to Election filed on 01/28/2026, claims 1-13 are pending. Claims 12-13 are withdrawn based on the restriction requirement. Claims 1-11 are considered in the current Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 01/28/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 01/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/17/2023 and 07/09/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “to PP/CA” should read as “to pressing force/contact area” based on [0049] of the specification as both abbreviations are not known term in the art. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a first obtaining unit configured to obtain first information about a pressing force applied to the mold when the mold and the imprint material on the substrate are brought into contact with each other” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a means plus a functional limitation because of the combination of a non-structural generic placeholder “unit” and a functional limitation “to obtain” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure in the specification is “the control unit 14 obtains information (first information) about the pressing force applied to the mold 3 when the mold 3 and the imprint material on the substrate are brought into contact with each other (functions as a first obtaining unit). Note that if a load cell is provided on the mold stage 50, a measured value (actually measured value) obtained by the load cell when the mold 3 and the imprint material on the substrate are brought into contact with each other may be obtained as the pressing force” as recited in [0055] of the instant application.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a second obtaining unit configured to obtain second information about a contact area…” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a means plus a functional limitation because of the combination of a non-structural generic placeholder “unit” and a functional limitation “to obtain” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The specification of the instant application fails to provide any structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. At most, the specification recites “the control unit 14 obtains information (second information) about the contact area between the mold and the imprint material when the mold and the imprint material on the substrate are brought into contact with each other (functions as a second obtaining unit)” as recited in [0054] of the instant specification. However, there are no structural limitation associated with it. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the claim as any apparatus/sensor that can be used to detect the contact area between the mold and the imprint material.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a third obtaining unit configured to obtain third information about a position deviation of the substrate…” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a means plus a functional limitation because of the combination of a non-structural generic placeholder “unit” and a functional limitation “to obtain” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure in the specification is “the off-axis alignment measurement system 9 and the control unit 14 obtain information (third information) about the position deviation of the substrate 1 held by the substrate holding unit 2 with respect to the substrate holding unit 2” as recited in [0071] of the instant specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a first obtaining unit configured to obtain first information about a pressing force applied to the mold when the mold and the imprint material on the substrate are brought into contact with each other” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a means plus a functional limitation. The corresponding structure in the specification is “the control unit 14 obtains information (first information) about the pressing force applied to the mold 3 when the mold 3 and the imprint material on the substrate are brought into contact with each other (functions as a first obtaining unit). Note that if a load cell is provided on the mold stage 50, a measured value (actually measured value) obtained by the load cell when the mold 3 and the imprint material on the substrate are brought into contact with each other may be obtained as the pressing force” as recited in [0055] of the instant application. However, based on the corresponding structure from the specification, it is unclear if “a first obtaining unit” is referring to “a control unit” or “a load cell”. Furthermore, claim 1 also recites “a control unit”, it is unclear if “a first obtaining unit” is referring to the same “control unit” as recited in claim 1 or a different control unit. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation as “a first obtaining unit” as a load cell or any equivalent structure that measures the pressing force as the mold is brought into contact with the imprint material.
Regarding Claim 4, claim limitation “second obtaining unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. At most, the specification recites “the control unit 14 obtains information (second information) about the contact area between the mold and the imprint material when the mold and the imprint material on the substrate are brought into contact with each other (functions as a second obtaining unit)” as recited in [0054] of the instant specification. However, there are no structural limitation associated with how the contact area information is obtained. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
17. Claims 2-11 are rejected by virtue of depended on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020/0183270 (Okada) and US2007/0145639 (“Seki et al” hereinafter Seki).
Regarding Claim 1, Okada teaches an imprint apparatus (Figure 1) that forms a pattern of an imprint material on a substrate using a mold (abstract and [0001]), comprising:
a substrate holding unit (Figure 3B, substrate holding unit 61) including a plurality of holding regions (Figure 3B, the plurality of holding regions 64a-64c) whose pressures to the substrate are independently controlled ([0043] and [0046]), and configured to hold the substrate on the plurality of holding regions (Figure 3B and [0045], substrate holding unit 61 holding the substrate 5);
a control unit configured to control, based on the first information obtained by the first obtaining unit, the pressure between the substrate and each of the plurality of holding regions ([0007], a control unit configured to control a pressure of the plurality of holding regions, wherein the control unit controls the pressure based on at least one of shape information and distortion information of the substrate, at least when the curable composition is cured) in a state in which the mold and the imprint material on the substrate are in contact with each other such that deformation that occurs in the substrate due to the pressing force falls within an allowable range ([0046] and [0075]).
Okada teaches the control unit 14 functions as an acquisition unit that acquires the pressure for each of the holding regions 64a, 64b, and 64c input into the console unit 15 (Figure and [0015]) but fails to teach a first obtaining unit configured to obtain first information about a pressing force applied to the mold when the mold and the imprint material on the substrate are brought into contact with each other.
However, Seki teaches a first obtaining unit (Figure 4, load cell 4106) configured to obtain first information about a pressing force applied to the mold when the mold and the imprint material on the substrate are brought into contact with each other ([0074] and [0077], the pressure or the load, between the substrate and the mold with respect to the pattern formation material, is directly measured by a load cell which is a load converter for converting a weight of object (load) into an electrical signal)
Okada and Seki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of imprint apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus of Okada such that it discusses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Seki to convert a weight of object (load) into an electrical signal ([0077]) and detecting a pressure or a load applied between the mold and the substrate ([0023]).
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Okada teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit controls the pressure between the substrate and each of the plurality of holding regions (Okada, [0046] and [0075]) such that the substrate becomes flat in a state in which the mold and the imprint material on the substrate are in contact with each other, and the pressing force is applied to the mold ([0046] and [0075]).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Okada teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit controls the pressure between the substrate and each of the plurality of holding regions such that in each of the plurality of holding regions, the pressure between the holding region and the substrate balances the pressing force (Okada, [0046] and [0075]).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Okada teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a second obtaining unit (Okada, [0057], the control unit 14 transfers a pattern of the mold 3 to the imprint material on the substrate 5 by controlling, for example, the operation and the adjustment of each portion of the imprint apparatus 1) configured to obtain second information about a contact area between the mold and the substrate ([0026], the mold moving unit 42 moves the mold holding unit 41 (the mold 3 ) in the Z direction, in order to bring the mold 3 into contact with the imprint material on the substrate 5 , or separate the mold 3 from the imprint material on the substrate 5) in a state in which a whole surface of a pattern surface of the mold and the imprint material on the substrate are in contact with each other ([0073]),
wherein the control unit controls, based on the second information obtained by the second obtaining unit as well, the pressure between the substrate and each of the plurality of holding regions such that the deformation that occurs in the substrate due to the pressing force falls within the allowable range ([0061], [0075], and [0105]).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Okada teaches the apparatus according to claim 4, wherein in each of the plurality of holding regions, the control unit controls the pressure between the holding region and the substrate to PP/CA (Okada, [0061], [0073], [0075], and [0105], the control unit controls the pressure of the holding region of the substrate holding unit 61 in the state where the mold 3 and the imprint material on the substrate 5 are in contact with each other. Therefore, the present exemplary embodiment is beneficial in terms of overlay accuracy).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Okada teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of holding regions are concentrically defined regions (Okada, Figure 3A and [0103], the plurality of holding region 64a-64c of the substrate holding unit is concentrically divided to correct the radial distortion of the substrate).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Okada teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the plurality of holding regions are rectangularly defined regions.
Okada further discloses the holding region of the substrate holding unit 61 is concentrically divided to correct the radial distortion of the substrate 5, but the shape to be divided is not limited to this example ([0103]). Thus, Okada discloses the claimed invention except for the plurality of holding regions are rectangularly defined regions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modified the concentrically divided the plurality of holding regions of Okada such that the plurality of holding regions are rectangularly defined region, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. Further, one would have been motivated to select the shape of holding regions of the substrate holding unit based on the shape of the substrate holding unit and the substrate so that the plurality holding unit covers the entire area of the substrate holding unit· See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified Okada teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of holding regions is a region smaller than one shot region on the substrate.
However, Okada discloses the pressure of each of the holding regions 64a, 64b, and 64c is changed so that the shape of the pattern portion 3 a and the shape of the target shot region coincide with each other ([0075]) and the shape of the target shot region can be expanded or contracted relative to the pattern portion 3a by controlling the pressure of the holding region 64a to the positive pressure or the negative pressure. In addition, the amount of expansion/contraction can be controlled based on the magnitude of the pressure ([0098]). As the pressure of the holding regions is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said size of the one shot region on the substrate, with said pressure of the holding regions increasing as the one shot region on the substrate increased, the precise size of the one shot region on the substrate would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed size of the one shot region cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the size of the one shot region in the apparatus of Okada so that each of the plurality of holding regions is a region smaller than one shot region on the substrate to obtain the desired expansion/contraction of the holding regions based on the desired pressure to minimize the shape difference between the pattern portion and the target shot region ([0105]). (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Okada teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a plurality of partitions (Okada, Figure 3B, a plurality of partitions 63 a, 63 b, and 63c) of the substrate holding unit 61 provided in the substrate holding unit to define the plurality of holding regions ([0043], a plurality of regions 64a, 64b, and 64c partitioned by a plurality of partitions 63a, 63b, and 63c is formed on an upper surface (a surface facing the substrate 5 ) of the substrate holding unit 61), wherein of the plurality of partitions, a partition on an outermost side has a height lower than those of the remaining partitions ([0047]).
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020/0183270 (Okada) and US2007/0145639 (“Seki et al” hereinafter Seki) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US2018/0154559 (Harayama).
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Okada teaches the apparatus according to claim 4, Okada fails to teach the additional limitations of claim 6.
However, Harayama teaches a third obtaining unit (Figure 1, measurement device 31) configured to obtain third information about a position deviation of the substrate held by the substrate holding unit with respect to the substrate holding unit (Figure 1, measurement device 31 measures the position of the substrate stage 6 and [0036]), wherein the control unit controls, based on the third information obtained by the third obtaining unit as well, the pressure between the substrate and each of the plurality of holding regions such that the deformation that occurs in the substrate due to the pressing force falls within the allowable range ([0053], [0055], and [0056]).
Okada and Harayama are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of imprint apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the modified apparatus of Okada such that it discusses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Harayama to adjust the pressure within each region based on the measured positional data to avoid non-alignment between the mold and the substrate ([0047]).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Okada teaches the apparatus according to claim 6, further comprising a measurement system (Harayama, Figure 1, height measurement device 29) configured to measure a position of a mark provided on the substrate and a position of an outer edge of the substrate ([0037]), wherein the position deviation is obtained from the position of the mark and the position of the outer edge, which are measured by the measurement system ([0037]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754